Definition and utilization of relational tags

ABSTRACT

A system is described which allows a user to define a relational tag. The relational tag describes how a first item is related to a second item within an identified qualifying context. For instance, the relational tag may state that the first item is ranked higher than or lower than the second item. When utilized by many users, the system forms a graph of interconnected items. The system can perform comparative analysis within this graph. For instance, based on the relational tags, the system can determine which item is the top-ranking item or bottom-ranking item within the graph.

CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Ser. No. 11/276,539(the '539 application), filed on Mar. 3, 2006, naming the inventors ofMartin R. Frank, Walter M. Tseng, Charles E. Groom, and Fred F.Sadaghiani, entitled “Collaborative Structured Tagging for ItemEncyclopedias.” The '539 application is incorporated herein by referencein its entirety.

BACKGROUND

A tag generally refers to metadata which identifies a feature of acontent item. In some traditional systems, a pre-established referencesystem governs the naming and application of the tags. More recently,systems have been developed that allow users to define their own tags incollaborative fashion, thereby creating a so-called folksonomy. A wellknown service that allows users to interact in a collaborative taggingenvironment is “del.icoi.us” (Delicious).

FIG. 1 describes certain features of a known collaborative taggingenvironment. In this system, assume that three representative users(user 1, user 2, and user n) have created user-defined tags tocharacterize two websites. A first website 102 contains informationabout a hypothetical Sedan-X manufactured by ABC Co. A second website104 contains information about a hypothetical Sedan-Y manufactured byLMN Co. Assume that the first user defines a tag “Sedan-X” 106 tocharacterize the first website 102 and a tag “Sedan” 108 to characterizethe second website 104. The second user defines a tag “Sedan-X” 110 tocharacterize the first website 102 (thereby agreeing with the firstuser), as well as a tag “Midsize” 112 to characterize the second website104. The third user defines a tag “Sedan” 114 to characterize the firstwebsite 102 and a tag “4.0 Liter” 116 to characterize the second website104. As can be appreciated, many additional users may also create tagsto describe the first website 102 and the second website 104.

A tagging system can inform users of divergent vocabulary used todescribe items. A tagging system can also notify users of commonly usedtags. For example, the tagging system of FIG. 1 can inform the usersthat multiple users have applied the tag “Sedan” to characterize thefirst website 102. In this sense, when users annotate a particular item,they can be considered as voting on a particular interpretation of theitem. However, the tagging system is not providing any insight herebeyond providing a “flat” historical record of the tagging behavior ofusers. For this reason, it is difficult to draw meaningful conclusionsfrom this type of collection of tags.

For at least the above-identified reasons, there is a need for moresatisfactory tagging systems.

SUMMARY

A system is described which allows a user to define a relational tag.The relational tag expressly describes how a first item is related to asecond item. For instance, the relational tag may state that the firstitem is ranked above the second item within an identified context. Whenutilized by many users, the system forms a graph of interconnecteditems. The system can perform comparative analysis within this graph.For instance, based on the relational tags, the system can determine thetop-ranking within the graph.

Additional exemplary implementations and attendant benefits aredescribed in the following.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 shows a known type of collaborative tagging system.

FIGS. 2 and 3 show an overview of an exemplary tagging strategy thatemploys the use of relational tags, where each relational tag relates abase item to at least one other item in a defined context.

FIG. 4 shows an exemplary tagging system which adopts the taggingstrategy of FIGS. 2 and 3.

FIGS. 5A, 5B, 5C, and 5D show functionality for use in the system ofFIG. 4 that allows a user to create a relational tag.

FIG. 6 shows functionality for use in the system of FIG. 4 that allows auser to perform comparative analysis based on a collection of relationaltags.

FIG. 7 shows an exemplary object that can be used to store one or morerelational tags according to one exemplary implementation of the systemof FIG. 4.

FIG. 8 shows one exemplary system that is configured to process the typeof object depicted in FIG. 7, the system including an item manager andan item encyclopedia.

FIG. 9 shows an exemplary article page produced by the item encyclopediaof FIG. 8.

FIG. 10 shows an exemplary editing page for defining tags associatedwith the article page shown in FIG. 9.

FIG. 11 shows exemplary processing functionality for implementing anyaspect of the system shown in FIG. 4.

FIG. 12 shows an exemplary procedure for defining a relational tag.

FIG. 13 shows an exemplary procedure for performing analysis based on aplurality of relational tags created using the procedure of FIG. 12.

The same numbers are used throughout the disclosure and figures toreference like components and features. Series 100 numbers refer tofeatures originally found in FIG. 1, series 200 numbers refer tofeatures originally found in FIG. 2, series 300 numbers refer tofeatures originally found in FIG. 3, and so on.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

This disclosure sets forth a system for creating relational tags. Eachrelational tag describes how an item, generically represented as “X” isrelated to at least one other item, generically represented as “Y”,based on a relationship “R”, within a context “C” To facilitatediscussion, the term “base item” is used to refer to the item X. Thatis, the base item refers to the item which is being tagged. The term“other item” is used to denote the item Y. That is, the other itemrefers to an item with which the base item is being compared. In onerelationship, the user defines the base item X as being better than orworse than the item Y, or more generally, as being ranked higher than orlower than the item Y. However, as will be explained, the relationship Rcan link the base item X with the other item Y in other ways.

The disclosure also sets forth a system for performing comparativeanalysis based on a collection of relational tags. For instance, thesystem can apply transitive analysis to determine which item is rankedhighest, which item is ranked lowest, and so on.

The term “item” refers to any kind of object. In one example, an itemmay correspond to something that can be acquired (e.g., purchased) bythe user, such as media content (a book, a musical piece, etc.), atangible article (e.g., an automobile, a camera, etc.), a service,downloadable digital content of any nature, and so forth. The system mayelectronically describe an item using an “item record”. In other cases,the object being described with tags is an informational item (such as awebsite that caters to a certain theme), there being no underlyingphysical object associated with the informational item. In brief, then,the term “item” is to be liberally and generally construed as usedherein.

This disclosure includes the following sections. Section A describes anexemplary system for creating and utilizing relational tags. Section Bdescribes exemplary procedures that explain the operation of the systemof Section A.

A. Exemplary Systems

As a preliminary matter, the terms logic, module, or functionalitygenerally represent hardware, software, firmware or a combination ofthese elements, or yet some other kind of implementation. For instance,in the case of a software implementation, the terms logic, module, orfunctionality represent program code that perform specified tasks whenexecuted on a processing device or devices (e.g., CPU or CPUs). Theprogram code can be stored in one or more machine-readable media.

The term machine-readable media or the like refers to any kind of mediumfor retaining information in any form, including various kinds ofstorage devices (magnetic, optical, static, etc.). The termmachine-readable media also encompasses transitory forms of representinginformation, including various hardwired and/or wireless links fortransmitting the information from one point to another.

A.1. Exemplary Relational Tagging Paradigm

Prior to discussing exemplary systems that rely on a relational taggingstrategy, by way of introduction, this section addresses certainfeatures of the tagging strategy itself.

FIG. 2 shows a scenario in which a user creates a relational tag 202 tocharacterize an item X. In this illustrative case, item X is acommercially available digital camera. In broad terms, the relationaltag 202 describes how item X differs from one or more other items, suchas a hypothetical item Y, optionally within some context C. In otherwords, the relational tag 202 expresses a relative distinction betweenitems X and Y within some context C. Item Y may correspond to anotherdigital camera produced by another manufacturer. The relational tag 202links item X together with item Y based on a relationship R. Theoptional context C describes the environment (or set of conditions) thatqualify the identified relationship between X and Y. Stated another way,the context C sets forth the reasoning why the relationship between Xand Y is considered to hold true.

Different kinds of nexuses can be used to define the relationship R. Onerelationship is a better-than type of relationship, or more generally,any kind of comparative relationship in which one item is ranked aboveor below another item for any reason. Namely, the tag 202 can state thatitem X is better than item Y within a certain context C. Alternatively,the same effect can be achieved by tagging item Y to indicate that it isworse than item X within the context C. For this kind of relationship R,the context C can define the qualifying circumstance in which item X isranked higher than or lower than item Y. For instance, one or more tagscan be used to convey that item X is a better camera for takingphotographs in the rain than item Y, the context here being thesuitability of the camera for taking photographs in the rain. One ormore other tags can be used to convey that item X would make a bettergift for Father's Day than item Y, the context here being thesuitability of the camera for a Father's Day gift. Many other examplescan be provided. An item may be superior to other items in one context,yet inferior to other items in another context.

The tag 202 can express other relationships R, including, withoutlimitation, any one or more of the following list of relationships.Although not stated, any of these relationships can optionally bedefined as relating to a context C, in a similar manner to thatdescribed above.

-   -   X is a good substitute for item Y. Another relationship R can        convey that item X is a good substitute for item Y.    -   X is an accessory of item Y. Another relationship R can convey        that item X can be used as an accessory of item Y (or more        generally, in conjunction with item Y).    -   X includes Y, or X is part of Y. Another relationship R can        convey that item X is a part within item Y. Another relationship        expresses the opposite, namely that item X is an encompassing        whole that includes item Y as a member.    -   X causes Y, or X is caused by Y. Another relationship can convey        that item X is an event that is one contributing factor that        causes item Y. Another relationship expresses the opposite,        namely that item X is caused by item Y.    -   X is the opposite of Y. Another relationship can convey that        item X is the opposite of item Y. Another relationship can        express the opposite, namely that item X is the same (or        generally the same) as item Y.    -   X is a generic representation of Y, or X is a species of Y.        Another relationship expresses that X is a genus having Y as a        species. Another relationship can express the opposite, namely        that item X is a species of item Y.

Again, the tag 202 can express yet other kinds of relationships betweenitem X and item Y, the above list being non-exhaustive. Different groupsof relationships may be particularly appropriate for differentrespective applications. For example, in an online shopping application,at least the following relationships may be particularly appropriate: Xis ranked above or below item Y for any stated reason; X is a goodsubstitute for Y; X is an accessory of Y; X is less expensive than Y; Xis better quality than Y; X is more current than Y, and so on.

In another variation, a single tag 202 can relate item X to plural otheritems, such as items P, Q, and R. Alternatively, the user may createplural relational tags which relate item X to items, P, Q, and R, e.g.,a first tag that relates item X to item P, a second tag that relatesitem X to item Q, a third tag that relates item X to item R, and so on.

The system can use the types of relational tags shown in FIG. 2 toperform comparative analysis. The type of comparative analysis that isperformed may depend, in part, on the nature of the relationshipsexpressed by the tags.

Consider, for example, the representative case of FIG. 3. Here, therelational tags express a better-than type of relationship, or moregenerally, any kind of comparative relationship. Namely, for thisparticular type of tag, a user associates the tag with a base item X toindicate that the base item X is ranked higher than some otheridentified item Y. The use of this type of relational tag allows thesystem to rank the items from worst to best or from best to worst. Theranking is performed in the specific context of “party camera”, or morefully stated, the suitability of a camera for taking pictures at aparty. Thus, when a user tags an item X as being better than an item Y,she is saying that camera X is better than camera Y for taking picturesat a party.

More specifically, in the hypothetical scenario of FIG. 3, fourrepresentative users have created relational tags to characterize threeitems. As to these three items, item X 302 is associated with a web pagedescribing a still image camera X produced by ABC Co. Item Y 304 isassociated with a web page describing a still image camera Y produced byLMN Co. Item Z 306 is associated with a web page describing a stillimage camera Z produced by EFG Co. The first user creates a tag 308 toannotate item X 302, indicating that item X 302 is better than item Y304 for taking pictures at a party (where this qualifying context isleft unstated in the remaining explanation of FIG. 3). The second usercreates a tag 310 to annotate item X 302, also indicating that item X302 is better than item Y 304. A third user creates a tag 312 whichdisagrees with the first two users; namely, the third user creates thetag 312 to annotate item Y 304, indicating that item Y 304 is betterthan item X 302. A fourth user creates two tags. A first tag annotatesitem X 302, concurring with the first two users that item X 302 isbetter than item Y 304. The second tag annotates item X 306, indicatingthat item Z 306 is better than item X 302. Instead of, or in additionto, “better-than” types of tags, the user may create tags which indicatethat certain web pages are worse than other web pages. (More generally,comparisons can be expressed in terms of one item being ranked above orbelow another item for any reason.) Other comparative tags, such as a“same as” tag, a “similar to” tag, and a “good substitute for” tag, arealso envisioned.

It will be appreciated that the tagging behavior shown in FIG. 3 can beduplicated by many users, creating a large store of relational tags.More specifically, due to the use of relational tags to characterizeitems, the store can form a graph of interconnected items (which canalso be characterized as a relational mesh or web, etc.). In this graph,items can be directly related, or more often, indirectly related by achain of individual links.

Other entities besides human users can create and edit tags. Forexample, any kind of device, application, system, etc., canautomatically annotate one or more items with tags. For example, amerchant-related application can automatically note, based on the onlinebehavior of users (or other empirical evidence), that item X is morepopular than item Y. Such online behavior can comprise sales data,shopping cart selection data, click-through data, and/or otherinformation. Based on this information, the application canautomatically annotate an item record corresponding to item X with arelational tag to indicate that item X is more popular than item Y.Other applications can automatically apply other types of relationaltags to items to express other kinds of relationships among items.

The system can perform comparative analysis to derive conclusions basedon the graph of interconnected items. For example, the system candetermine, based on the aggregated tagging results, that item X is mostlikely better than item Y and that item Z is better than item X. Thus,though transitive logic, the system can determine that item Z is thebest item and item Y is the worst item (in the specific context of thesuitability of cameras of taking pictures at parties). Moreover, thesystem can attach levels of confidence to these output results, such asby providing an output score which represents the level of disagreementamong users regarding certain tags, and/or which represents the size ofthe sampling pool on which conclusions have been reached.

In the example of FIG. 3, a group of users has collaboratively tagged acollection of items corresponding to cameras that predominately takestatic (still) digital images. However, the strategy described hereinplaces no limitation on the kinds of comparisons that users may make.The strategy specifically permits the users to make cross-categorycomparisons, or even relatively idiosyncratic comparisons. For instance,in the context of FIG. 3, a user may create a tag that specifies thatstill image Camera-X is a better party camera than a certain videocamera. In a yet more divergent vein, the user can idiosyncraticallyindicate that a certain human professional photographer is better thanCamera-X for taking pictures at parties, by which the user may possiblymean that she receives better results using this professionalphotographer than taking her own pictures with Camera-X.

As will be described more fully in a later subsection, the strategy mayalso allow the user to annotate items with category tags. On the basisof this provision, the strategy may allow the user to filter a graph ofinterconnected items to extract relationships within a certain category,such as digital still cameras. This, in turn, allows the strategy toperform transitive analysis among items that are restricted to aspecific category.

A.2. Exemplary System

FIG. 4 shows an overview of one exemplary system 400 for creating andutilizing relational tags. In system 400, a plurality of devices, suchas representative device 402, are coupled to an operations center 404 bya coupling mechanism 406. The explanation provided below with respect tothe representative device 402 likewise applies to other devices (notshown), unless otherwise noted.

Beginning with the hardware-related aspects of the system 400, theoperations center 404 can be implemented as one or more server computers(e.g., as a “farm” of such computer servers) and associated databases.The architecture of the operations center 404 can be separated intofront-end components that interface directly with the device 402 andback-end components that can perform offline analysis. Generally, thecomponents of the operations center 404 can be located at a single site,or distributed over plural sites, and managed by a single entity orplural entities.

The device 402 represents any kind of electronic unit which can interactwith the operations center 404 via the coupling mechanism 406. In themost common case, the device 402 corresponds to a computer device, suchas a personal computer, laptop computer, and so forth. But the device402 may also correspond to a mobile telephone, a Personal DigitalAssistant (PDA) device, a set-top box coupled to a television, astylus-type input device, any kind of wearable computer, an electronicbook-reader device, a personal media player, a game console device, andso forth. In any event, the device 402 can comprise as main parts: aprocessing unit 408; a presentation unit 410; and an input unit 412. Theprocessing unit 408 generally corresponds to functionality (e.g.,software logic, and/or circuitry, etc.) for processing information. Thepresentation unit 410 generally corresponds to any mechanism orcombination of mechanisms for presenting the processed information. Forexample, the presentation unit 410 can present a graphical userinterface 414 for interacting with the user. The input unit 412generally corresponds to any mechanism or combination of mechanisms forinputting data and instructions to the processing unit 408.

FIG. 11, to be discussed below, in turn, provides additional detailsregarding equipment that can be use to implement any aspect of theoperations center 404 or the representative device 402.

The coupling mechanism 406 can correspond to any kind of communicationconduit or combination of communication conduits. In the case mostcommonly evoked in this disclosure, the coupling mechanism 406corresponds to a wide area network, such as the Internet. However, thecoupling mechanism 406 can alternatively, or in addition, comprise otherkinds of communication conduits, such as an intranet, point-to-pointcoupling arrangement, and so forth. In any case, the coupling mechanism406 can include any combination of hardwired links, wireless links,routers, repeaters, gateways, name servers, and so forth (not shown),governed by any protocol or combination of protocols.

The functional aspects of the system 400 are now set forth in greaterdetail, starting with the operations center 404. In one case, theoperations center 404 may represent a website or multiple websitesmaintained by a single entity or multiple entities. The operationscenter 404 can handle requests from the device 402, and can serve, inresponse, various web pages that can be rendered at the device 402(e.g., using browsing functionality implemented by the device 402).

The operations center 404 can include a tagging system 416. The purposeof the tagging system 416 is to annotate items stored in one or moreitem stores 418 (referred to in the singular below for ease ofreference). The item store 418 can correspond to a database of itemrecords maintained by an online merchant. In this context, each item inthe item store 418 represents an item that a user can purchase orotherwise acquire. In one implementation, a single entity can administerboth the tagging system 416 and the item store 418. Alternatively,different entities can respectively administer the tagging system 416and the item store 418.

In another application, the items in the item store 418 can correspondto any kind of informational items that do not necessarily havemerchandisable counterparts. In one case, for instance, the item store418 can broadly represent a collection of items associated with websites(and thus loosely represents the storage capacity of the entireInternet). A user can use the tagging system 416 to annotate the itemsassociated with the websites.

Still other applications are possible.

FIG. 4 shows that the tagging system 416 can include two main modules. Aconcept creation and editing (CCE) module 420 allows a user to createand potentially edit tags. The tags annotate items with supplementalinformation. The CCE module 420 can store these tags in a tag store 422.The tagging system 416 also includes a concept analysis module 424. Thepurpose of the concept analysis module 424 is to perform analysis onitems based on the tags created by the CCE module 420.

Finally, it should be noted that one or more functions described aboveas being implemented by the operations center 404 can alternatively, orin addition, be performed on a local level by the devices, such as bydevice 402. To generically represent this feature, FIG. 4 shows that thedevice 402 includes optional client-side tagging functionality 426.

A.3. Exemplary Techniques for Inputting Relational Tags

As stated above, the purpose of the concept creation and editing (CCE)module 420 is to create relational tags and to potentially editpreviously created relational tags. To this end, the CCE module 420 canemploy multiple different types of input techniques. FIGS. 5A-5D showfour representative techniques, although other techniques can be usedthat are not illustrated.

In a first technique shown in FIG. 5A, the CCE module 420 can provide apage 502 to the user that includes an input field 504 for entering arelational tag in free-form fashion. In one exemplary application, thepage 502 can correspond to a product detail page which shows detailsregarding an item being offered for sale, namely the hypotheticalCamera-X produced by ABC Co. The input field 504 allows the user toinput a tag which sets forth how the item “Camera-X” differs from someother item, such as a hypothetical Camera-Y produced by anothermanufacturer. The input field 504 allows the user to enter thisrelationship as a free-form textual expression. In the exampleillustrated in FIG. 5A, the user opts to express this relationship inquasi-mathematical terms by typing the expression “Item X>Item Y”. TheCCE module 420 can interpret the user's input by attempting to match theinput against predetermined patterns of relational expressions, withreference to a database of rules and telltale keywords (e.g., “better”,“worse”, “higher”, “lower”, “above”, “below”, “greater”, “lesser”,etc.), and so on. For instance, assume that a user inputs the tag “isbetter Father's Day gift than Minolta XYZ”. The CCE module 420 can firstdetect that the tag includes the keyword “better”, which means that theuser is creating a comparative-type of tag, which has a characteristicstructure. The CCE module 420 can then extract the subject (or target)of the comparative relationship, namely “Minolta XYZ”. That is, the name“Minolta XYZ” is likely the subject of the expression because it followsthe telltale word “than”. The remaining phrase (“Father's Day gift”) canbe interpreted as the qualifying context of the expression. Tofacilitate this interpretation task, the CCE module 420 can provideguidance to the user that informs the user how he or she might structurethe relational expression. The CCE module 420 can also query the userfor clarification if it cannot readily interpret the relationship thatthe user has entered.

In a second technique shown in FIG. 5B, the CCE module 420 can provide apage 506 that provides a more structured input field 508 for entering arelational expression. Namely, in one illustrative case, a drop-downmenu 510 is provided that identifies various relationships that the usermay choose from, such as, but not limited to, “better than”, “worsethan”, “substitute for”, “accessory to”, and so on. Alternatively, or inaddition, the relationships can be alternatively be expressed inmathematical terms, such as using the symbols, <, >, ≈, and so on. Theinput field 508 can include another drop-down menu 512 for selectinganother item against which item X is to be compared, in this case, itemY. To facilitate selection of the other item, the input field 508 canalso optionally include a browse command 514 or other command field. Theinput field 508 allows the user to browse a database of items againstwhich the item X may be compared. Clicking on an item in the database(e.g., item Y) causes the CCE module 420 to insert an identifierassociated with this item into the relational expression being developedvia the input field 508.

In a third technique shown in FIG. 5C, the CCE module 420 can provide apage 516 that shows multiple products being offered, such as Camera-X,Camera-Y, and Camera-Z. This page 516 includes an input field 518 forperforming multi-item ranking. In this case, by virtue of numbersentered into the input field 518, the user indicates that Camera-Z isbest and Camera-Y is worst. In response to this global type of input,the CCE module 420 can potentially create multiple relational tags,e.g., by creating a tag for item X which indicates that it is betterthan item Y, and by creating another tag for item X which indicates thatitem X is worse than item Z.

In a fourth technique shown in FIG. 5D, the CCE module 420 can provideanother page 520 that shows multiple products being offered, such asCamera-X, Camera-Y, and Camera-Z. Each of the items has an “Is Best”command button associated therewith, such as the “Is Best” button 522associated with the first item, “Camera-X”, The user can identify whichitem is considered best by activating the “Is Best” command buttonassociated with the identified item. Compared to case of FIG. 5C, thepage 520 shown in FIG. 5D allows the user to more directly and easilyspecify which item is considered best, or more generally, which item isranked the highest. Still additional input provisions can be used toinput relational tags. The input techniques shown in FIGS. 5A-5D aremerely illustrative.

A.4. Exemplary Mechanisms for Analyzing Items Based on Relational Tags

FIG. 6 describes the concept analysis module 424 in greater detail. Asstated above, one purpose of the concept analysis module 424 is toperform cross-item comparisons based on the relational tags (and, ifprovided, the use of category tags, to be described in the nextsubsection). To this end, the concept analysis module 424 includes avoting analysis module 602 and a relationship analysis module 604.

The voting analysis module 602 performs aggregative and statisticalanalysis regarding the tags created by multiple users in a collaborativeenvironment. For instance, suppose that 70 users create tags whichindicate that item X is better than item Y, but 30 users indicate thatitem Y is better than item X. The voting analysis module 602 can tallythese votes and provide a level of confidence to an assessment that itemX is better than item Y, e.g., by indicating that the statement X>Y canbe expressed with a confidence level that is related to the ratio of0.7. The confidence level may generally be a function of both the levelof agreement among users and the size of the sampling pool from which aconclusion has been reached.

The relationship analysis module 604 may analyze a relatively largecollection of relational tags established by multiple users, the tagsdescribing how multiple base items differ from respective multiple otheritems. As described above, a sufficiently robust population ofrelational tags may create a rich graph of interconnected items. Thepurpose of the relationship analysis module 604 is to mine this graphand derive conclusions from the graph. In one case, where items aretagged with “higher-than” type comparative tags, the relationshipanalysis module 604 can employ a ranking module 606 to sort the items,based on the relational tags, e.g., from highest to lowest or fromlowest to highest.

FIG. 6 shows one exemplary output of the relationship analysis module604 in the form of a ranking display page 608. The ranking display page608 presents a ranked list of items. The ranking display page 608 canalso optionally convey confidence metrics which pertain to thereliability of its conclusions.

Another exemplary output of the relationship analysis module 604 isdisplay page 610. This page 610 may provide information regarding afeatured product, such as a Camera-Z. As part of the descriptiveinformation, the page 610 can provide information which conveys howCamera-Z compares with some other camera (or plural cameras) within adefined qualifying context. For example, the page 610 includes ahypertext link 612 or other type of prompt. The hypertext link 612allows the user to access information that reveals “the best camera forthe beach”. The relationship analysis module 604 can present thisparticular kind of link 612 upon detecting that Camera-Z has beenpreviously ranked by one or more users with respect to its suitabilityfor beach photography (and upon detecting that Camera-Z is not generallyconsidered the best camera for this use). By virtue of the link 612, amerchant can provide up-sell opportunities. In the circumstance in whichCamera-Z happens to be judged the best, the page 610 can alert the userto this top-ranking status.

Although not shown, the page 610 can also provide a portal forcross-category comparisons. For instance, instead of inviting the userto investigate other cameras, the page 610 can present a link to aproduct-neutral topic, such as by providing a link that reads “Show mebetter gifts for Father's Day”. This link may reveal one or more otheritems that other users have previously ranked superior to Camera-Z forthe purpose of making a good Father's Day gift. These other items arenot limited to other cameras. Again, the relationship analysis module604 can select a Father's Day theme for the linking information byvirtue of the fact that Camera-Z has been previously identified by oneor more other users in the context of making Father's Day giftcomparisons.

Those skilled in the art will appreciate that many alternative ways ofconveying the output of the relationship analysis module 604 arepossible.

A. 5. Tag Data Structure Including Category and Fact Tags

The tagging system 416 of FIG. 4 can create relational tags that haveindependent utility. This is because, as set forth above, the taggingsystems 420 can draw meaningful conclusions from an analysis of therelational tags alone. In another implementation, the tagging system 416can allow the users to create other types of tags. Furthermore, thetagging system 416 can organize different kinds of tags into a datastructure. Each instance of the data structure is referred to herein asa concept object. As will be described, the tagging system 416 can formmore nuanced conclusions based on an analysis of concept objects thatinclude relational tags, in addition to other kinds of tags.

FIG. 7 sets forth one such concept object 702. The concept object 702can include a concept name field 704, a free text description field 706,and a tagging data structure 708. The optional concept name field 704contains a unique name of the concept for the purpose of identifying theconcept. The optional free text description field 706 allows users toenter a description of the concept the associated item, or both.

The tagging data structure 708 associates multiple tags including one ormore first or category tags 710(1)-710(K) and one or more collections ofsecond or fact tags 712(1)-712(J). The category tags 710(1)-710(K)characterize the items in terms of generic or objective categories. Forinstance, suppose that the item is an Olympus® brand digital camera soldby the Olympus Corporation. In this example, a category tag might be“digital camera”.

A first group of facts tags 712(1)-712(J) are associated with theconcept and provide facts about an item represented by the concept. Foreach category tag 710(1) through 710(K), there is a set of zero or morefact tags 712 that describe the salient properties of the item. Forexample, suppose the item is a camping tool with an integratedflashlight and compass. The item may be tagged with two category tags,such as “Flashlight” and “Compass”. The fact tags describing theattributes of this item might include one set of fact tags pertaining tothe flashlight aspects of the item and another set of facts pertainingto the compass aspects of the item. Thus, associated with the categorytag “Flashlight”, the concept may include fact tags for the item with aname:value of “Batteries Needed: 4 AA”. For the category tag “Compass,the concept may include fact tags for the item with a name:value of“Magnetic Sensitivity: High”.

Each of the fact tags 712(1)-712(J) has a name portion 714 to identifyan attribute of the item and one or more corresponding value portions716 that provide one or more values of the attribute identified by thename portion. Said differently, each fact tag has a name:value pair,where there may be more than one value for each name. Moreover, the nameportion 714 and the value portion(s) 716 are also tags.

Thus, each fact tag is composed of a collection of one name tag and zeroor more value tags. In FIG. 7, the first fact tag 712(1) is composed ofone name tag 714(1) and multiple value tags 716(1A)-716(1Y). Forinstance, in the digital camera example, the name tag might be “color”and the value tags might be “silver”, “black”, and “white”. The firstfact tag 712(1) is an example of a multi-part fact tag, where there areone or more value tags 716(1A)-716(1Y) associated with the name tag714(1). The second fact tag 712(2) is composed of one name tag 714(2)and one value tag 716(2A). Here, the name tag might be “weight” and thevalue tag might be “4.52 oz (128 grams)”. The second fact tag 712(2) isalso representative of a multi-part fact tag in that it has at least onename tag 714(2) and at least one value tag 716(2A). The third fact tag712(3) is composed of just one name tag 714(3) and no value tags. Inthis case, the name tag might be “weatherproof”, where presence of thename tag would suggest that the item is weatherproof, and absence of thename tag would suggest that it is not. This third fact is representativeof a singleton fact tag, where there are no value tags associated withthe name tag 714(3). Over time, the collaboratively defined tags form afolksology to categorize the items offered in the catalog.

From one perspective, the tagging structure may be considereddimensional in that the category tags define what the item is and thefact tags, in the context of the category tags, define attributes orfeatures of the item as characterized by the category tags. Further, theattribute or name tags are associated via the structure with one or morevalue tags. The tagging structure thereby provides relationships amongterms that enable many useful functions for the user when exploringfeatures of a product. Unlike previous flat tag approaches, where thereis no distinction between category or fact tags, or between name tagsand value tags, the non-flat tagging structure 708 allows users toeasily compare multiple items according to a category selected by theuser. With the flat tag approach, there is no way to describe the natureof a relationship between the tags.

For instance, suppose the user would like to compare all “digitalcameras” in the item catalog. The user simply selects this category tagand all items tagged with this category tag are located, and then therelated fact tags of “color” and “weight” associated with the categorytag of “digital camera” are easily arranged for convenient observation.For instance, the name tags are aligned horizontally, with associatedvalue tags grouped vertically beneath their corresponding name tags. Incontrast, with a flat tag structure, where there is no distinctionbetween digital camera, color, and weight, there is no way for thesystem to understand how to align the attributes upon selection of“digital camera”. Furthermore, since there are no name:value pairs inthe flat tag approach, there is no context for a comparison. The systemhas no context for how to compare “color” since there is no valueassociated with “color” in a flat tag approach.

To further facilitate item comparison, the tagging structure 708 caninclude a collection 718 of special types of fact tags 720(1)-720(L)that express relational facts associated with an item represented by theconcept object 702. As explained above, each relational tag relates abase item X to another item Y within some optional context C. Therelational fact tags 720(1)-720(L) therefore provide directed input fromthe users that expressly identifies how items relate to each other.

FIG. 7 shows one exemplary way to structure the relational fact tags720(1)-720(L). Like other fact tags, the relational fact tags 720include name tags 722(1)-722(P) and associated value tags 724(1)-724(S).In the case of relational fact tags, a name tag 722 expresses the natureof the relationship R and, optionally, the context C that qualifies therelationship. A value tag (also referred to as a target tag) 724expresses the item Y with which the base item X is being compared. Forinstance, consider the statement “Camera X is a better beach camera thancamera Y”. The name tag 722 for this relationship corresponds to “is abetter beach camera”. The value tag 724 for this relationshipcorresponds to “camera Y”. Since a base item represented by the conceptobject 702 can be compared with many other items in different contexts,the concept object 702 can include multiple relational type fact tags.

The tagging system 416 can leverage the enhanced information provided bythe concept object 702 to provide more nuanced conclusions regarding acollection of tagged items. For instance, the tagging system 416 canfilter a graph of interconnected items to extract only those items thatbelong to a certain category (or plural specified categories). Thetagging system 416 can then perform transitive analysis that islocalized within one or more specified categories.

A.6. Application to a Collaborative (Wiki) Environment

FIG. 8 shows the application of the system 400 of FIG. 4 to acollaborative environment. In one collaborative tagging environment,also known as known as a Wiki environment, users collaborativelycontribute to the creation of articles. The articles may containdescriptive tags.

To set forth one concrete application of such a collaborativeenvironment, the operations center 404 can represent a merchant websitethat allows access to one or more items. In this context, an item canrepresent anything that the merchant wishes to offer for sale, or thatothers using the merchant's website wish to offer for sale. An item caninclude a product, a service, or some other type of sellable unit.

The operations center 404 can maintain an item store 418 (or pluralstores) of item records that describe the merchandisable items. Theitems records in the item database 418 may be accessible, directly orindirectly, by the device 402. Each item record contains informationabout an associated item being offered for sale on the website. Forproducts such as books or music CDs, for example, the item record maycontain a description, images of the product, author/artist names,publication data, pricing, shipping information, and so forth. For othertypes of items, the item record may contain different informationappropriate for those items.

The operations center 404 can include an item manager 802. The itemmanager 802 facilitates access to and management of the item records inthe item store 418. That is, the item manager 802 allows websiteoperators to add or remove item records in the item store 418, andgenerally maintain control of the items offered by the operations center404. When a user requests information on an item from the operationscenter 404, one or more servers (not shown) retrieve the iteminformation from the item store 418 and serve a web page containing theinformation to the requesting user computing device. The item store 418may contain static web pages that are pre-generated and stored prior tosuch requests, or may alternatively store data that is used to populatedynamic web pages that are generated in response to such requests.

The operations center 404 may also host an item encyclopedia 804. Theitem encyclopedia 804 offers rich authoritative information regardingthe various items represented in the item store 418. More specifically,the item encyclopedia 804 facilitates creation of articles about theitems. These articles may include any information helpful to a user inlearning about the item and deciding whether to purchase the item. Suchinformation may include descriptions of the items, features andspecification data, images of the item, intended uses, identities ofmanufacturers or distributors, accessories, and so on. These articlescan be served by the operations center 404 to the users to assist theusers in better understanding the items.

In a collaborative environment, the encyclopedia articles arecommunity-authored, where any number of users may add, modify, or deletecontent contained in the item encyclopedia 804. Thus, individual userscan create new articles to describe new items being offered in the itemstore 418, and also edit articles crafted by other users. The edits canbe logged and monitored to prevent malicious entries.

The item encyclopedia 804 also supports tagging of the items with tagsto assist in navigation, search, and item comparison. These tags may beassigned by the manufacturer or supplier of the items, the websiteoperator, and/or any member of the community. In connection therewith,the item encyclopedia 804 can include the above-described tagging system416, including the concept creation and editing (CCE) module 420 and theconcept analysis module 424.

The version of the tagging system 416 shown in FIG. 8 can bespecifically configured to process the type of concept objects set forthin FIG. 7, including category tags and fact tags (including relationalfact tags). In this context, the user-defined tags are added to thetagging data structure 708 as part of the concept object 702. Aplurality of such concept objects is stored in a concept database 806.Once the items are tagged, the tagging system 416 may use the categorytags and fact tags (including relational fact tags) to locate, organize,and compare the items. Note that the concept database 806 represents anenhanced counterpart to the tag store 422 of FIG. 4, which stores onlytags (rather than data structures which include tags as componentsthereof).

In the collaborative environment shown in FIG. 8, the CCE module 420allows users to author and edit articles that describe the itemsrepresented in the item store 418. The CCE module 420 also allows usersto annotate the items with category tags and fact tags (includingrelational fact tags). In this manner, the CCE module 420 producesconcept objects that contain articles, tags, and other item metadata, asexpressed by the exemplary concept object 702 shown in FIG. 7.

The item encyclopedia 804 also includes the above-described conceptanalysis module 424. The concept analysis module 424 facilitatescomparison of the items based on the category tags and fact tags(including relational fact tags). For example, when the user wishes tocompare similarly tagged items (e.g., items annotated with a “digitalcamera” category tag), the concept analysis module 424 can locate theconcepts in the concept database 806 having common category tags. Thisallows users to perform cross-product comparisons, that is, byaggregating items with similar characteristics and providing aconvenient mechanism for the user to compare the properties of theseitems.

As explained above, the particular combination of category tags andrelational fact tags can fine-tune the comparisons provided by theconcept analysis module 424. For instance, the concept analysis module424 can allow the user to perform better-than type comparisons in thecontext of a relatively narrow theme. For example, assume that a groupof users has created relational tags that rank many different kinds ofcameras as being suitable for taking pictures at the beach. Also assumethat many users have annotated a certain class of cameras with thecategory tag of “video camera”. Based on the combination of categorytags and relational fact tags, the concept analysis module 424 can forma filtered list of video cameras, ranked according to their suitabilityfor taking pictures at the beach.

The item encyclopedia 804 also may include a history log 808. Thepurpose of this module 808 is to track the changes entered by thecommunity of users. A summary of the history log 808 can be presented tothe users.

The item encyclopedia 804 also may include a discussion framework 810.This module 810 facilitates user discussion pertaining to items. Forinstance, the discussion framework 810 allows users to enter and postcommentary regarding items. The framework 810 then formats thecommentary for presentation to the user. The framework 810 also providesa mechanism for other users to offer feedback on the commentary.

The item encyclopedia 804 can include yet other types of modules (notshown in FIG. 8).

FIG. 9 shows an article page 902 that the item encyclopedia 420 can useto display an article to a user, the article having associateddescriptive tags. The article page 902 optionally includes a name of theitem being featured (i.e., “Olympus Stylus 800 Digital”) along with animage of the camera. A description appears just below the item name andimage, although other layouts may be used. The description may be anoriginal description provided by the manufacturer, or a descriptioncrafted by the website operator, or information given by a user in thecommunity. Moreover, the description may represent several iterationsauthored by multiple users in the community.

The article page 902 also has a category section 904 and a fact section906 located beneath the description. The category section 904 lists oneor more category tags to which the item may belong. In this example, theitem belongs to the category “digital camera” and is represented on thepage by a selectable category tag (as illustrated with underlining,although in practice the tag may be represented using other techniques,such as color variation). The contents for the category tag are providedby the category tag field(s) 710(1)-710(K) in the tagging structure 708of the concept object 702 (see FIG. 7).

It is noted that other items maintained in the item catalog may havemore than one category tag. For instance, an item titled “XYZ RadioAlarm Clock” may have multiple category tags, including one for thecategory “Radio” and one for the category “Alarm Clock”.

Also note that the categories section 904 includes a “Compare” prompt.This prompt allows the user to make comparisons within the specifiedcategory of digital cameras. Upon selection of this compare link, theitem encyclopedia 804 locates other items in the item catalog that havebeen tagged with the category tag “digital camera” and presents theresults to the user.

The fact section 906 contains one or more fact tags that are associatedwith the category tag for the item. Each fact tag has a name portionidentifying an attribute of the item and one or more corresponding valueportions providing one or more values of the attribute identified by thename portion. For instance, in FIG. 9, the first fact tag has a nameportion “Resolution” to identify the resolution attribute of the digitalcamera and a value portion “8.0 Megapixel” to provide the value of theresolution attribute named “Resolution”.

The article page 902 also can include a relationships section 908. Therelationships section 902 can display information gleaned fromrelational tags entered by users, constituting special types of facttags. The relationships section 908 can display the relationship of theOlympus camera to other products in various ways. For instance, therelationships section 908 can display a list of cameras in order frombest to worst, or from worst to best, etc. (or more generally, fromhighest ranked to lowest ranked, or vice versa). The section 908 canalternatively convey relationships using mathematical comparison symbols(e.g., “<” and “>”), and so on. Page 608 of FIG. 6 shows one exemplaryand non-limiting way of conveying the user-defined relationship ofitems.

The user can create and edit various aspects of the article page 902 byactivating an “Edit” prompt 910. This action activates an edit page 1002shown in FIG. 10. The edit page 1002 includes a first section 1004 forcreating and editing category tags and a second section 1006 forcreating and editing fact tags. In the second section 1006, the user canenter and edit non-relational types of fact tags (e.g., “Resolution: 8.0Megapixel”) that express properties of the item. The second section 1006also allows the user to enter and edit relational types of fact tags(e.g., “Is better beach camera than Minolta 123”).

The edit page 1002 can also optionally include a third section 1008 thatprovides special tools for creating and editing relational tags. Thethird section 1008 may invoke any of the editing tools shown in FIGS.5A-5D, or yet some other type of editing mechanism.

Although not shown, other editing functionality can be used to editportions of the article page 902 other than its tags, such as theportion of the page 902 that provides a textual description of the item.

A.7. Exemplary Processing Functionality

FIG. 11 shows exemplary processing functionality 1100 that can be usedto implement various aspects of the system 400 shown in FIG. 4, such asthe user device 402, the operations center 404, any component of theoperations center 404, and so forth. The processing functionality 1100can represent, without limitation, any one or more of: a personalcomputer; a laptop computer; a server-type computer; a book-reader typedevice; a portable media player device; a personal digital assistant(PDA) device; a mobile telephone device; a tablet-type input device; anykind of wearable device; a game console device; a set-top box device,and so on. To facilitate discussion, the processing functionality 1100is described below as specifically implementing the representative userdevice 402, although, as stated, the generic processing functionality1100 also sets forth an architecture of a server-type computer that canbe deployed at the operations center 404.

In this local device context, the processing unit 408 can comprise oneor more processing components 1102 (such as a CPU, neural network,etc.), RAM 1104, RAM 1106, media components 1108 (such as a hard drive,DVD drive, etc.), network interface 1110 (such as a telephone or cablemodem, broadband connectivity mechanism, etc.), and an I/O interface1112 for interacting with input devices and output devices. One or morebuses 1114 couple the above-described components together.

The output device(s) can include the presentation unit 410, whichpresents the graphical user interface 414. The input device(s) 412 caninclude any one or more of a keyboard, mouse input device, track ballinput device, joystick input device, touch sensitive screen, and soforth.

In those cases in which the processing functionality 1100 is used toimplement the user device 402, the device 402's various functions can beimplemented as machine-readable instructions that reside in any storageunit or combination of storage units shown in FIG. 11, and the processor1102 can execute these instructions to produce desired operationspertaining to the creation and utilization of tags. Similarly, in thosecases in which the processing functionality 1100 is used to implementthe operations center 404, or some component thereof, the center 404'svarious functions can be implemented as machine-readable instructionsthat reside in any storage unit or combination of storage units shown inFIG. 11, and the processor 1102 can execute these instructions toproduce desired operations pertaining to the creation and utilization oftags.

B. Exemplary Procedures

FIGS. 12 and 13 describe the operation of the system 400 of FIG. 4 inflow chart form. To facilitate discussion, certain operations aredescribed as constituting distinct blocks performed in a certain order.Such implementations are exemplary and non-limiting. Certain blocksdescribed herein can be grouped together and performed in a singleoperation, and certain blocks can be performed in an order that differsfrom the order employed in the examples set forth in this disclosure.The blocks shown in the flowcharts can be implemented by software,firmware, hardware, manual processing, or by a combination of theseelements.

As the functions described in the flowcharts have already been set forthin Section A, Section B serves primarily as a review of those functions.

B.1. Creation of Relational Tags

FIG. 12 shows a procedure 1200 for creating relational tags.

In block 1202, the system 400 can optionally prompt the user to enter arelational tag. For instance, when the user is viewing a particular itempage for an item X, the system 400 may invite the user to specify howitem X differs from another item, e.g., item Y, within an optionalcontext C.

In block 1204, the system 400 receives the user's input of a relationaltag. The user can specify a relational tag in any of the ways set forthin FIGS. 5A-5D, or in yet some other way.

In block 1206, the system 400 stores the entered relational tag in thetag store 422, or as a field in the concept object 702, as stored in theconcept store 806.

B.2. Analysis of Relational Tags

FIG. 13 shows a procedure 1300 for performing analysis based onrelational tags input via the procedure 1200.

In block 1302, the system 400 optionally receives the user's invocationof a tag analysis operation. For example, the user may initiate thisoperation by clicking on the comparison link 908 shown in FIG. 9.

In block 1304, the system 400 analyzes items based, at least in part, onthe relational tags associated with the items. The system 400 can alsorely on category tags and non-relational fact tags in performingcross-item comparisons.

In block 1306, the system 400 outputs the results of its analysis to theuser, e.g., in the form of one or more graphical user interfacepresentations.

In closing, although the invention has been described in languagespecific to structural features and/or methodological acts, it is to beunderstood that the invention defined in the appended claims is notnecessarily limited to the specific features or acts described. Rather,the specific features and acts are disclosed as exemplary forms ofimplementing the claimed invention.

1. A computerized method comprising: under control of one or morecomputer systems configured with executable instructions, receiving adefinition of a type of relationship represented by a relational tag,wherein the definition of the type of relationship is selected from agroup consisting of: an accessory type of relationship representing thatthe base item is an accessory of the at least one other item; a samenesstype of relationship representing that the base item is the same as theat least one other item; a similarity type of relationship representingthat the base item is similar to the at least one other item; anincludes type of relationship representing that the base item includesthe at least one other item; a part type of relationship representingthat the base item is a part of the at least one other item; a causaltype of relationship representing that the base item causes the at leastone other item; an opposite type of relationship representing that thebase item is opposite of the at least one other item; a generic type ofrelationship representing that the base item is a generic representationof the at least one other item; a species type of relationshiprepresenting that the base item is a species of the at least one otheritem; a substitute type of relationship representing that the base itemis a substitute for the at least one other item; a ranking relationshiprepresenting how the base item ranks with respect to the at least oneother item within an identified context; a quality type of relationshiprepresenting that the base item is better quality the at least one otheritem; a cost type of relationship representing that the base item isless expensive the at least one other item; a trend type of relationshiprepresenting that the base item is more current than the at least oneother item; a better than type of relationship representing that thebase item is better than the at least one other item; a worse than typeof relationship representing that the base item is worse than the atleast one other item; a greater than (>) type of relationshiprepresenting that the base item is greater than the at least one otheritem; a less than (<) type of relationship representing that the baseitem is less than the at least one other item; an approximately equal(≈) type of relationship representing that the base item isapproximately equal to the at least one other item; and a user createdtype of relationship representing that the base item has the usercreated type of relationship to the at least one other item; receiving arelational tag having the type defined, the relational tag relating abase item to at least one other item according to the type ofrelationship defined; and annotating the base item with the relationaltag.
 2. The computerized method of claim 1, further comprising receivinga context in which the definition of the type of relationship relatesthe base item to the at least one other item, the context comprising aqualifying circumstance of the type of relationship defined in therelational tag.
 3. The computerized method of claim 1, the relationaltag comprising: a name tag that identifies the type of relationshiprepresented by the relational tag; and a value tag that expresses the atleast one other item.
 4. The computerized method of claim 1, furthercomprising establishing a graph of interconnected items by repeating thereceiving the relational tag and the annotating with respect to aplurality of different base items including the base item.
 5. Thecomputerized method of claim 3, wherein at least two items in the graphare directly related.
 6. The computerized method of claim 3, wherein atleast two items in the graph are indirectly related through a chain ofitems, the chain of items comprising the at least two items in the graphand at least one intervening item.
 7. A computerized method comprising:under control of one or more computer systems configured with executableinstructions, receiving a relational tag that links a base item to atleast one other item according to a defined relationship, wherein thebase item and the at least one other item can be acquired by a user andthe defined relationship defines the link between the base item and theat least one other item, the defined relationship including a typeselected from a group consisting of: a sameness type of relationshiprepresenting that the base item is the same as the at least one otheritem; an includes type of relationship representing that the base itemincludes the at least one other item; a causal type of relationshiprepresenting that the base item causes the at least one other item; aranking relationship representing how the base item ranks with respectto the at least one other item within an identified context; a qualitytype of relationship representing that the base item is better qualitythe at least one other item; a cost type of relationship representingthat the base item is less expensive the at least one other item; atrend type of relationship representing that the base item is morecurrent than the at least one other item; a better than type ofrelationship representing that the base item is better than the at leastone other item; a worse than type of relationship representing that thebase item is worse than the at least one other item; a greater than (>)type of relationship representing that the base item is greater than theat least one other item; a less than (<) type of relationshiprepresenting that the base item is less than the at least one otheritem; an approximately equal (≈) type of relationship representing thatthe base item is approximately equal to the at least one other item; anda user created type of relationship representing that the base item hasthe user created type of relationship to the at least one other item;and annotating the base item with the relational tag.
 8. A computerizedmethod comprising: under control of one or more computer systemsconfigured with executable instructions, receiving a relational tag thatlinks a base item to at least one other item according to a definedrelationship, wherein the base item and the at least one other item canbe acquired by a user and the defined relationship defines the linkbetween the base item and the at least one other item, the definedrelationship including a type selected from a plurality of typescomprising: a sameness type of relationship representing that the baseitem is the same as the at least one other item; an includes type ofrelationship representing that the base item includes the at least oneother item; a causal type of relationship representing that the baseitem causes the at least one other item; a ranking relationshiprepresenting how the base item ranks with respect to the at least oneother item within an identified context; a quality type of relationshiprepresenting that the base item is better quality the at least one otheritem; a cost type of relationship representing that the base item isless expensive the at least one other item; a trend type of relationshiprepresenting that the base item is more current than the at least oneother item; a better than type of relationship representing that thebase item is better than the at least one other item; a worse than typeof relationship representing that the base item is worse than the atleast one other item; a greater than (>) type of relationshiprepresenting that the base item is greater than the at least one otheritem; a less than (<) type of relationship representing that the baseitem is less than the at least one other item; an approximately equal(≈) type of relationship representing that the base item isapproximately equal to the at least one other item; or a user createdtype of relationship representing that the base item has the usercreated type of relationship to the at least one other item; andannotating the base item with the relational tag.
 9. The computerizedmethod of claim 8, wherein the defined relationship ranks the base itemwith respect to said at least one other item within an identifiedcontext.
 10. The computerized method of claim 8, wherein the definedrelationship relates the base item as a substitute for said at least oneother item.
 11. The computerized method of claim 8, wherein the definedrelationship relates the base item as an accessory of said at least oneother item.
 12. The computerized method of claim 8, wherein therelational tag comprises: a name tag that identifies a type ofrelationship expressed by the relational tag; and a value tag thatexpresses said at least one other item.
 13. The computerized method ofclaim 8, wherein the relational tag is stored in a data structure, thedata structure also storing at least one category tag that identifies acategory of the base item.
 14. The computerized method of claim 8,further comprising establishing a graph of interconnected items byrepeating the receiving and annotating with respect to a plurality ofdifferent base items.
 15. The computerized method of claim 14, whereinat least two items in the graph are directly related.
 16. Thecomputerized method of claim 14, wherein at least two items in thegraphs are indirectly related through a chain of items.
 17. Thecomputerized method of claim 14, further comprising performingcomparative analysis on the graph of interconnected items.
 18. Thecomputerized method of claim 17, wherein the comparative analysisinvolves ranking the items in the graph of interconnected items byanalyzing a plurality of relational tags, the ranking comprising anindication of a top-ranked item or bottom-ranked item in the graph. 19.The computerized method of claim 18, further comprising tagging itemswith category tags, wherein each category tag identifies a category ofan associated item.
 20. The computerized method of claim 19, wherein thecomparative analysis involves providing an ordered list of items withina selected category by filtering with respect to a category tagassociated with the selected category.
 21. The computerized method ofclaim 18, further comprising analyzing collective tagging behavior ofusers and forming a confidence level associated with the indication ofthe top-ranked item or the bottom-ranked item.
 22. The computerizedmethod of claim 8, wherein the annotating is performed via a taggingsystem.
 23. One or more machine-readable storage media storingcomputer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause one or moreprocessors to perform acts comprising: receiving a free-form relationaltag, the relational tag relating a base item to at least one other item;identifying a defined relationship between the base item and the atleast one other item based at least on the free-form relational tag,wherein the defined relationship includes a type selected from a groupconsisting of: a sameness type of relationship representing that thebase item is the same as the at least one other item; an includes typeof relationship representing that the base item includes the at leastone other item; a causal type of relationship representing that the baseitem causes the at least one other item; a ranking relationshiprepresenting how the base item ranks with respect to the at least oneother item within an identified context; a quality type of relationshiprepresenting that the base item is better quality the at least one otheritem; a cost type of relationship representing that the base item isless expensive the at least one other item; a trend type of relationshiprepresenting that the base item is more current than the at least oneother item; a better than type of relationship representing that thebase item is better than the at least one other item; a worse than typeof relationship representing that the base item is worse than the atleast one other item; a greater than (>) type of relationshiprepresenting that the base item is greater than the at least one otheritem; a less than (<) type of relationship representing that the baseitem is less than the at least one other item; an approximately equal(≈) type of relationship representing that the base item isapproximately equal to the at least one other item; and a user createdtype of relationship representing that the base item has the usercreated type of relationship to the at least one other item; andannotating the base item with the free-form relational tag.
 24. One ormore machine-readable storage media storing computer-executableinstructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors toperform acts comprising: receiving a free-form relational tag, therelational tag relating a base item to at least one other item;identifying a defined relationship between the base item and the atleast one other item based at least on the free-form relational tag,wherein the defined relationship includes a type selected from aplurality of types comprising: a sameness type of relationshiprepresenting that the base item is the same as the at least one otheritem; an includes type of relationship representing that the base itemincludes the at least one other item; a causal type of relationshiprepresenting that the base item causes the at least one other item; aranking relationship representing how the base item ranks with respectto the at least one other item within an identified context; a qualitytype of relationship representing that the base item is better qualitythe at least one other item; a cost type of relationship representingthat the base item is less expensive the at least one other item; atrend type of relationship representing that the base item is morecurrent than the at least one other item; a better than type ofrelationship representing that the base item is better than the at leastone other item; a worse than type of relationship representing that thebase item is worse than the at least one other item; a greater than (>)type of relationship representing that the base item is greater than theat least one other item; a less than (<) type of relationshiprepresenting that the base item is less than the at least one otheritem; an approximately equal (≈) type of relationship representing thatthe base item is approximately equal to the at least one other item; ora user created type of relationship representing that the base item hasthe user created type of relationship to the at least one other item;and annotating the base item with the free-form relational tag.
 25. Theone or more machine-readable storage media of claim 24, the relationaltag comprising: a name tag that identifies the type of relationshiprepresented by the relational tag; and a value tag that expresses the atleast one other item.
 26. The one or more machine-readable storage mediaof claim 24, wherein: at least two items in the graph are directlyrelated; and/or at least two items in the graph are indirectly relatedthrough a chain of items, the chain of items comprising the at least twoitems in the graph and at least one intervening item.
 27. The one ormore machine-readable storage media of claim 24, the acts furthercomprising receiving a context in which the definition of the type ofrelationship relates the base item to the at least one other item, thecontext comprising a qualifying circumstance of the type of relationshipdefined in the relational tag.
 28. The one or more machine-readablestorage media of claim 24, the acts further comprising establishing agraph of interconnected items by repeating the receiving the relationaltag and the annotating with respect to a plurality of different baseitems including the base item.
 29. A system comprising: one or moreprocessors; and one or more computer-readable storage media storingcomputer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause the one ormore processors to perform acts comprising: receiving a relational tag ,the relational tag relating a base item to at least one other itemaccording to a defined relationship between the base item and the atleast one other item, wherein the defined relationship includes a typeselected from a plurality of types comprising: a sameness type ofrelationship representing that the base item is the same as the at leastone other item; an includes type of relationship representing that thebase item includes the at least one other item; a causal type ofrelationship representing that the base item causes the at least oneother item; a ranking relationship representing how the base item rankswith respect to the at least one other item within an identifiedcontext; a quality type of relationship representing that the base itemis better quality the at least one other item; a cost type ofrelationship representing that the base item is less expensive the atleast one other item; a trend type of relationship representing that thebase item is more current than the at least one other item; a betterthan type of relationship representing that the base item is better thanthe at least one other item; a worse than type of relationshiprepresenting that the base item is worse than the at least one otheritem; a greater than (>) type of relationship representing that the baseitem is greater than the at least one other item; a less than (<) typeof relationship representing that the base item is less than the atleast one other item; an approximately equal (≈) type of relationshiprepresenting that the base item is approximately equal to the at leastone other item; or a user created type of relationship representing thatthe base item has the user created type of relationship to the at leastone other item; and annotating the base item with the relational tag.30. The system as recited in claim 29, further comprising establishing agraph of interconnected items by repeating the receiving the relationaltag and the annotating with respect to a plurality of different baseitems including the base item.
 31. The system of claim 29, therelational tag comprising: a name tag that identifies the type ofrelationship represented by the relational tag; and a value tag thatexpresses the at least one other item.
 32. The system of claim 29,wherein: at least two items in the graph are directly related; and/or atleast two items in the graph are indirectly related through a chain ofitems, the chain of items comprising the at least two items in the graphand at least one intervening item.
 33. The system of claim 29, the actsfurther comprising receiving a context in which the definition of thetype of relationship relates the base item to the at least one otheritem, the context comprising a qualifying circumstance of the type ofrelationship defined in the relational tag.